GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD UKAI Vs. HIND MAZDOOR SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . The petition is filed by the Gujarat Electricity Board and it is directed against the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal inter alia holding that the workers engaged by the Contractors and who are working in the Thermal Power Station of the petitioner-Board at Ukal were employees of the Board and were also entitled to benefits such as weekly off, sick leave, casual leave, earned leave etc.

(2.) . A preliminary point was raised before the Tribunal. It was submitted that by demands Nos. 1 and 2, in substance it was prayed that the contract system of labour should be abolished and the workers employed by the contractors should be treated as regular employees of the Board, and should be entitled to all the benefits available to regular employees of the Board. Therefore it was contended that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the question of abolition of contract labour in view of the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act, 1970. The Tribunal, as per its order dated 25/08/1982 held that the Tribunal was called upon to decide as to whether the workers who were engaged for working in the Ukai Thermal Power Station were employees of the Board or they were employees of the contractors. There was no demand for abolition of contract labour as alleged. Demands Nos. 1 and 2 referred to the Tribunal read as follows :

(3.) . Way back in the year 1957 in the case of J. G. Vakharia v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, reported in 1957 (1) LLJ 448, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court observed that the canon of construing a social legislation is very different from the canon of construing a taxation law. The Court must not countenance any subterfuge which would defeat the provisions of a social legislation. It is further observed that if necessary the Court must strain the language of the Act in order to achieve the purpose which the legislature had in placing the legislation on the statute book. Recently, in the case of Workmen, A. R. I. Ltd. v. A. R. I. Ltd., Bhavnagar, reported in AIR 1986 SC 1, the Supreme Court has held that it is the duty of the Court in every case where ingenuity is expended to avoid taxing and welfare legislations to get behind the smoke screen and discover the true state of affairs. The Court is not to be satisfied with form and leave well alone the substance of a transaction.